My first reaction to news that some Dallas Morning News editors will now be reporting to sales-oriented GMs, was positively Munch-ian (or positively Caulkin-ian, for younger readers; either way, you get the idea).

If you haven’t heard about it yet, you can find some details here. Briefly, the News has decided that editors of sports, entertainment, real estate, automotive, travel and other sections will “will now report directly to Carr’s team of sales managers, now referred to as general managers.” (If you follow the link and read the full report, make sure you read the comments: there is good stuff there.)

I’m an old editorial guy, and although I worked closely with various ad managers at various small newspapers, there’s an initial soul-shrivelling response to the idea that the wall is not only being breached but blown into very small pieces.

But when you look at some of those sections, I wonder if there was much of a wall in the first place. I haven’t seen a copy of the DMN for years, but I do see the local broadsheet. And the local real estate and automotive sections are hardly home to hard-hitting journalism. The local auto reviewers, for example, have never met a car they didn’t like, or if they have, they’ve never written about it. The homes section doesn’t delve into issues such as leaky condos, but they do some soft-focus features on local housing developments.

Sections such as these exist primarily as vehicles for advertising. And there’s nothing wrong that: the advertising they draw (for what appear to be relatively low editorial costs) helps fund a lot of good, serious journalism. Does what the DMN is doing merely recognize that?

Initial reaction aside, I’m not ready to damn the Dallas newspaper to one of the inner circles of journalistic hell. At many small newspapers, there has always been a relationship between the business side and editorial (albiet, a relationship mediated through some poor, harassed editor, and not the director of sales).

And I find it somewhat intriguing that the memo outlining the changes, includes this: “These collaborations will bring new products that consumers want to the market more rapidly.” I’ve added the emphasis.

It is possible that this is nothing more than a cycnical sellout of the editorial department to the business side so that, in the declining years of the newspaper age, the cow can be milked as thoroughly as it can be.

It’s also possible that out of it, new products that serve both journalism and the newspaper’s other customers — the advertisers — may emerge. Unless those new products are a huge drain on limited editorial resources, it’s possible they, too, can help fund the serious journalism.

But maybe – just maybe – this isn’t such a bad idea. Instead of the advertising people infecting news coverage, maybe – just maybe – the creative energy and constructive skepticism of the newsroom will rub off on the ad guys, who sorely need all the help they can get.

It’s a shame that it’s gotten this far. In many ways, content is driven by advertisers, but having editorial staff members report to sales people is nothing short of ridiculous and borders on insulting.

The job of sales staff should be to sell the content/voice journalists produce, not the other way around.

I can see the logic of some reporters just shrugging their shoulders and taking it as a means of survival. As one commenter on the story put it – and I’m paraphrasing – adapt or wait for your layoff notice.

It’s a sad – but apt – commentary on how things work now in the journalism ‘industry’.

I got my layoff notice – one of one! – four months ago from the online arm of a community newspaper publisher whose major way of earning money was ‘we sell ads (for considerably less money because nobody looks at our websites because they aren’t properly ‘fed’ with content because editors are ridiculously overworked as it is and reporters don’t want additional tasks involving no additional compensation).’

I could see the writing on the wall months before I finally got my pink slip.

I’m lucky that I was able to find a ‘corporate’ job a month later, but I can’t help but feel bad for the 20-year journos who are going to be out on their butts in the next few years as newsrooms shrink again.

Love the blog, Mark. Still using the stuff you taught me even though I’m currently not in the industry.

[...] Alan Mutter thinks the news folks’ tenacity could rub off on the ad side, Canadian j-prof Mark Hamilton thinks the collaboration could help fund better reporting, and the Nieman Journalism Lab’s [...]

It’s impossible for any die-hard journalists not to have an initially negative reaction – but I agree that this may not be such a terrible thing. More communication between editorial and ad staffs is not and has never been, I would argue, inherently corrupting or unethical. Editorial independence is in the best interests of the advertising staff, too – if you produce obviously biased content shilling for a big advertiser, well, it’s not going to be particularly credible to consumers and you will lose audience and trust. What a news ad sales staff is selling to advertisers is, bottom line, credibility. Compromising that is in nobody’s best interests.

On the other hand, having access to information about readers’ wants and needs, which often the business staff has access to, doesn’t per se hurt the editorial side, either.

The other part of this is that I’m EXTREMELY impressed by the efforts to re-train the sales staff and create new strategies. From my own research, this is desperately needed, and the business side of most newspapers is actually well behind the newsroom in adapting to the Web and a non-monopoly environment.

A blog on journalism, media-related matters and some occasional personal stuff, by Mark Hamilton, a journalism instructor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, in the suburbs of Vancouver, B.C. You can email me or follow me on Twitter.